Do you have any evidence of this (aside from your mexican fast food anecdote)?

I've seen an inbound product support position for a supplement company require a master's degree in biology or related field. The main duty was to field calls from people saying they had allergic reactions from the supplements, open tickets in the system, and forward the calls to the higher-ups. In no way did the job require any real application of a master's level knowledge. I've seen several secretarial jobs require a bachelor's degree in English and I don't think aside from grammar and spelling that this really needs a bachelor's degree. I've seen machinist jobs require a bachelor's degree (why??). In fact, a lot of blue-collar or service industry jobs I come across state "bachelor's degree" of some sort required. I don't think I'm too far off the mark in saying that things in that regard have gotten out of hand.

I do agree, however, that there are jobs today that didn't really exist 25 years ago (for instance practically the entire job sector of IT) so some comparisons are apples to oranges.

I believe experience is still THE thing in SOME companies, but from my personal experience, it seems that society tries to pays back college students first, for the money (not time and hard work) they invested for that degree.

I think experience is really THE thing in practically *all* companies. In the end, they really don't care what you know more than what you can do with it. The underlying assumption is that a college degree means "I don't have to teach you how to do this job" when it really only means "I don't have to teach you the basics or the theory". Some companies require the degree to be able to pay what that person is really worth or to maintain some internal (or external) standard. The standard is really about proving to a third-party that "Yes, we as a company are competent and our products are quality because all our engineers/scientists/designers/workers/whatever are educated", which is a terrible thing. Some people that can do the work don't have the degree and some people with a degree can't do the work. That's why I applaud programmers without a degree that get high paying or really rewarding jobs. They have to show off their portfolio/experience and it has to be good enough to earn that kind of compensation.

Well, here's the thing -- if you're a company looking to hire, and you've got Phd and Master's graduates willing to accept similar pay and similar jobs due to market conditions, as those with a Bachelors, Associates, or Technical certification, all else being equal, why wouldn't you hire those more-educated people?

Educated doesn't neccasarily mean smart or capeable of doing the job. A Phd is a research degree and is mostly theretical with the purpose of expanding global knowledge on a particular subject.
I have intervied people who have been self taught and also people up to Phd level and the truth is there are some people with excellent academic achievments but, in the real world I wonder how they manged to get to the interview without killing themselves because they really have been that dumb. That isn't to say that everybody with a phd is dumb there are just as many idiots without academic smarts who are dumb too.

Well, of course, there are no universal truths. But in general its a better start than most others to cull the herd of applicants -- the question isn't whether all Phds are better suited to the role than all non-Phds, its whether at least one of the 5 Phd applicants will, statistically, prove to be more capable than the 10 top non-Phds that you spent a man-week separating from the stack of 300

And this gets less and less true. It turns out lately, that first prefered apliciants are those of experience and no education , then those of experience and education, and then those of only education, and then those of no education and no experience (for multiple of industries, especialy IT one).

I believe its due to the education bubble, that simply forces people to study university to have possibility to get any job, not a targeting job, and thus employers seeking working power considering further facts of an apliciant than an education much more prior like.

Even when picking apliciants that needs to yet only get "the ability" to work at a certain position (picking a junior technologist in an amonium factory), the picked "boy" will be the one with fast learning skills, not the one with degree promising the knowledge of it, even if the boy without degree in the field would outperform degree proven apliciant in a small extent over seeked skill.

But what a degree can prove, is discipline and dedication, but forcing people to spend piles of money to do so, thus getting possibly to gain any of the jobs - is mad.

for example, If in a town was a very capable surgeon, His assisting a terible nun .... I would preferably pick a leather and fur producing modeling mastress productres !. She would create a very comforatble sealing wounds upon patients. The best possible possible. Even if she was a retarder sick little affected girl society would like to protect from... she would be the best!

like (mister pudlik, there sems to be ill skin here!) (pudlik - what?!) (look!) (this is inproper skin! he is sick!) (now wait)

......... ok sister, deal with it...... it ends like this, and sis will save your ass, just becouse she is experienced fur and leather producer

Now show me a silly who can do this out of an university?

Surgeon pudlik will be desperate of not kjnowing how to help his patient, and his health terrible mosntrous sister will be the last to save you!

I am tryin'to explain that inspite of a lot of a professional like education, kids canot learn just like that. And they examine further trials for no matter of a job.......